Republican Party strategists, even under expected circumstances, knew they faced a difficult imbalance in the 2008 lineup of Senate races. The GOP have 21 seats to defend to just 12 for the Democrats.

Moreover, the political landscape in those 33 states looks forbidding, at least at this early stage of the 2008 campaign cycle. CQPolitics.coms current ratings of the races show five contests for Republican-held seats that appear highly competitive to just two for Democratic-held seats.

So it was with some political trepidation, along with sadness, that Republican officials received the news Monday night that Wyoming Republican Sen. Craig Thomas had died of leukemia at age 74.

State law requires the interim appointment of a member of the departed incumbents party  a Republican, in this case  to soon to fill the vacancy, even though Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal is a Democrat. But the law also sets up a special election in November 2008 to fill the remaining four years of the unexpired term Thomas won just last November.

It is unlikely that this unscheduled contest will rise initially into the competitive race category, given Wyomings normally strong Republican proclivities. But it will give the GOP a 22nd seat to defend, and could cause at least some diversion of vital campaign resources  especially if the Democrats, emboldened by the six-seat gain in 2006 that gave them their narrow control of the Senate, were to decide to throw some political venture capital into the race.

Actually, we need to win the Presidency with a Republican, and we also need to kill the Immigration Bill, which is what 85% of the population wants. If the Immigration Bill passes, many GOP faithful will work against those Republican Senators who support it. Sorry to break that news to everyone.

As far as I can see -- we can hold and win Senate seats IF -- and only if -- we elect a Republican president. For that reason, I will vote for ANYONE who wins the nomination -- even Rudy or Ron Paul. What about you?

Ditto that.

I'll strongly support my candidate (currently Romney) in the primary, and I'll vote for the eventual Republican nominee in the general. ...even if it's *gag* Giuliani or *gag* McFeign.

National elections are just too close right now to mess with third parties, IMO. All it does is throw the election to the other side.

I am convinced there is a big pay off if they lose. Hey they can hang out at some cushy law firm with multi million dollar salaries or join a lobbying firm for big bucks. Or they can be like Scuzzborough and go to work for PMSNBC and be a GOP analyst.

It does not matter how they vote or if they are defeated, it is a win-win for these traiterous bastards.

Let’s consider this Senate thing the other way around ... let’s assume the Democrat wins the President.

IF the Democrat wins the President, they WILL INCREASE their hold on the Senate, and RETAIN the House.

And, they WILL COME INTO CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT.

These are very sobering thoughts.

A left-socialtist, green, multi-cultural America.

Now, if the Republican wins the President, in a close race, I’d say the most probable result in the Senate is net zero or net 1. But, in any case, I don’t see the Senate changing much one way or the other.

I do believe we will pick up the House, but not by a wide margin.

This means that, to really move our agenda, we will have to do, in 2010 and 2012, what George W. Bush did in 2002 and 2004. But, at least we will be setting the agenda, and making incremental gains, instead of seeing the other side moving to consolidate power in this country, the way they are consolidating power in Venezuela.

This is why I think we have to be very serious about backing a candidate who can win.

Now, relative to CQ ratings ... I can see some upside potential for our side:

Arkansas - if Gov. Huckabee sets his sights on the Senate. (Was he terrific at the 3rd debate or what!)

New Jersey (and possibly even Michigan) - Rudy is showing very well in this state (and also in New Jersey and Pennsylvania). If Tom Kean could be enticed into a second run, we might win.

Iowa - Gov. Pawlenty would make a good running mate for every one of the front-runners. This could help us in the senate race in this neighboring state (and also in South Dakota).

Montana - We lost a Senate seat, in a very close election, in this state with an ethically-challenged incumbent. There’s a certain former Governor out there who should have been our nominee last year for the Senate, and might be persuaded to be our nominee next year.

If we were to pick up one or two of these seats, where we’re not expected to be competitive - “surprise pick-ups,” if you will - we could might start to think of net 2.

Elections, even national ones such as US Senators and Representatives, I am convinced are still local matters. A conservative candidate with a strong, active base, can win in nearly any area with some exceptional congressional districts.

Based solely on listening and reading protests, this immigration amnesty and illegals getting a pass on papers has disaffected a large number of legal and naturalized aliens. A case could made that strong messages to the black, Asian, and Hispanic communities regarding the cost to them that will come with this bill. Put the blame squarly on the Democrat party. Republicans can hold firm on this and hold on to this legislation until the McCain's and Gulianies are out of the race. Perhaps the republicans will feel less pressure if they realize that a strong border conservative is likely to be the nominee.

we can hold and win Senate seats IF -- and only if -- we elect a Republican president.

Sorry, but I do not see any logic in that statement at all. It flies in the face of historical precedent, and having Bush as president surely didn't do snot in 06.

Now if you replace that word "republican" with conservative candidates who we broken glass republicans can really support" then guess what?

I will bet real money on the GOP holding and winning other Congressional seats. Its not rocket science, but the GOP has lost my active support with all of the recent neo liberal, sell out American culture to garner potential future voters, courses of action.

I will support individual GOP candidates as I can, but the GOP will no longer have my support until I see real action on the value issues that move me. - and I see the end of the modern GOP as a major winner in American politics as it speeds down the highway to the lowest common denominator.

>

22
posted on 06/06/2007 2:25:09 PM PDT
by bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")

Hello . The reason Reid and Kennedy are pushing this amnesty bill is because plan to run PHONY ANTI-AMNESTY conservative Dems against these fools such as Graham, Saxby, Domenic, and Voleicki ( OH) etc.. ) The bill is a smart strategy , killing the repub party in the next en years with a flood of new dems and wiping out the repub base support for these fools who may win the repub primary but lose the general election . Karl Rove and Jorge are IDIOTS and sell outs to there large donors!

26
posted on 06/06/2007 2:38:14 PM PDT
by BurtSB
(the price of freedom is eternal vigilance)

Take good look at us over here in CA. The same strategy was applied to Ahnold....better him than a D. Well, it's turned out not to be so true. None of our state R reps speak out against Ahnold because of that little R next to his name. What did we get??? A Dem in R clothing who is all for illegal amnesty!

You would vote for a RINO if a “real” Republican doesn’t win the primary, and, if you give a hoot about America. If you don’t, stay home, vote for a Democrat, or Third Party. The outcome will be the same.

Who cares most republican spend, act, pander, and show no backbone, lack morals, just like DEMOCRATS. That’s why I don’t support the party anymore, I just support and vote for candidates. What we really NEED is a new Conservative party to take he place of the (on its last breaths-especially if Illigal Immigration Reform Passes) the Old GOP, Republican Party

Looks like a very manipulative article. If we lose these seats, not much will change because we frittered away the leadership and left ourselves with the guys that can’t decide which party they are in.

32
posted on 06/06/2007 3:27:03 PM PDT
by dforest
(Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)

The way I figure it, we’re down to 42, and only two votes shy of not being able to sustain a filibuster.

Any nominations?

I’m sure if we search real hard, we will find that last remaining Senator to kick out of the caucus, so that our country can go down the tubes, along with Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the country formerly known as Zaire.

After they pass this immigration bill...who really cares? I could care less who wins. We are a decade away from a President Salazar and a cabinet full of Hernandez’s, Trujillos and Velasquez’s. Calilfornia style.

What about me? I’m so damn fed up with Republicans and their lies to the base I’m voting third party and really don’t give a rip if 10 new Dem Senators and 30 new Dem Reps get elected. If we’re going to hell in a handbasket at least we’ll get there quicker with the Dems in charge.

39
posted on 06/06/2007 3:54:47 PM PDT
by saganite
(Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)

Do not point that finger at voters who will not vote for anyone just because they have a R next to their respective names.

Rather point that finger squarely at the candidate who have alienated the real base that delivers real victory.

Without them, there is no base at all, just another rainbow coalition incrementally shuffling it's way to the same platform as the middle of the political road Democrat Senators.

In such a case then TS, and goodbye to the GOP.

Purity? - How about something more than high spending, pro immigration, Spanish pandering nitwits who do not understand that those other groups that you speak of - and that they believe are their future - to come to the fore?

Im sure we can get the Republican caucus in the Senate down to 40 if we try hard enough.

It is not up to us to make such people electable. - It is up to them to rise to the challenge or pass into the footnotes of history.

40
posted on 06/06/2007 4:02:11 PM PDT
by bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")

If you are successful in getting the Democrats elected with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a majority in the House and the Presidency, don’t assume that I’ll be going to hell in the handbasket to which you will have consigned the United States.

My grandfather came here because the United States was the greatest country in the world. When that is no longer true, I will do as my grandfather did. There are plenty of decent countries in the world. I could consider, e.g., Chile, with lower taxes than the U.S., privatized social security and a voucher system for schools. They may require me to enter their country legally, and to actually learn Spanish before becoming a citizen, and I wouldn’t expect them to sign me up for welfare benefits on the day I arrive. But freedom is what is important to me, not welfare benefits.

Good lord !! What a choice. One that I would prefer to not have to make.

If a RINO wins the primary, which is possible, would I vote for the d’RAT instead. No, of course not. Would I vote third party...probably not.

Trouble with a third party or independent is that they would have no support inside the congress and the resulting power struggle would not lead to any meaningful reform. Not that I oppose gridlock in congress, but neither the d’RATS nor the Republicans would have any incentive to work with an independent POTUS but every incentive to work against him. The prospect of the results of such a situation frightens me.

Take good look at us over here in CA. The same strategy was applied to Ahnold....better him than a D. Well, it's turned out not to be so true. None of our state R reps speak out against Ahnold because of that little R next to his name. What did we get??? A Dem in R clothing who is all for illegal amnesty! I can't see how it's helping us.

I thought it would neat that I would be required to learn Spanish and embrace the culture of their country. I don’t think they’d like us coming there in large numbers, and swamping their language and culture. I thought it would be fair of me to show some sympathy to the social conservatives who think the number of migrants is too large and too many from one place.

But, as for my #1 country outside of the U.S., I kind of like three: New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. I like Germanic Switzerland and Bavarian Germany (except I’m holding out to see if Germany can assimilate all the eastern Germans raised under communism and practically useless).

I really like Austria, the Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Norway.

These countries have well-established civil liberties, economic freedom comparable to or not much less than the U.S., and I would fit in, being the ethnicity I am.

BTW I have family in Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Germany, Great Britain and Italy, so I guess my family continues to be just a bunch of wanderers.

The problem with all these countries is that they’re not the United States. We may have our problems, but we’re the greatest country in the world’s history. We’ve done enormous good in the world, and our job is not over.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.